A Fresh Perspective

Rarely do I find myself in agreement with op-ed writer Kathleen Parker, particularly her political analysis, but her piece on the response of biblical literalists to the movie “Noah” was quite good. She noted that the National Religious Broadcasters threatened to boycott the film unless Paramount (the film’s distributor and co-financer with New Regency) issued a disclaimer that the movie is not a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. Parker sarcastically writes, “It is good to have fundamentalist literalists explain exactly what the Bible authors intended, especially since a literal interpretation would keep moviegoers away or put them to sleep.” Parker is right to note that biblical writers had a “keen appreciation for parable and metaphor.” And that’s exactly what the biblical story of Noah, as well as all the stories in the early chapters of Genesis are—parable and metaphor. These stories are religious stories, metaphorical narratives that convey spiritual truth...

Recently in a webcast, Richard Rohr offered a simple rule of thumb for discerning, evaluating, and judging the redemptive value of biblical texts. The first question to ask of any biblical text, he said, is not, “How does this text help me, save me, guide me?” Those are questions that leave the ego in charge. The first question to ask is: What does this text say about God? How is God imaged in the text? How does the text portray God? Father Rohr says: If the God depicted and imaged in the text is operating at a level lesser than the best person you know, then you know that the text is not presenting an authentic revelation of God. If the God portrayed in that text is not as just or loving or compassionate or understanding or gracious or forgiving or kind or fair as the best person you know, then you know it can’t be a reliable portrait of God. When we read accounts of God ordering Israel to put an entire civilization under the ban—to kill men, women, children, animals, and d...